It's
Hard out Here for a Pimp (like Shuster): Cable "News" and the
Pimping of Myth

Remarks by MSNBC
reporter/anchor, David Shuster, about pimping Chelsea Clinton have caused
a petit mal convulsion. In case you missed it, Shuster, subbing
for the snarky Tucker Carlson this past Thursday night, remarked
regarding Chelsea Clinton's calling on Super Delegates for Hillary: "Doesn't
it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of
way?" Let's analyze this comment and consider why it has caused a
minor uproar.

On the first level
of signification, the level of language, the comment posits Hillary in
the role of pimp, and Chelsea in the role of prostitute. Despite the remonstrance
of Republicans, Obama fans, and other Clinton haters-that the vernacularism
has been divested of its strict denotation and the word "pimp"
has lost its sexual significance- "pimp" still retains the meaning
of sexual hustler. That's exactly how such vernacularisms work. Let me
explain.

In "Myth Today,"
Roland Barthes introduced the notion of a "second-order semiological
system," in which the first order of semiology, language, is adopted
and to some degree mutated within a second level of statement, myth. Within
a second order of meaning, the strict meaning of language ("Chelsea
is sort of being pimped out") becomes meaningful within a historically
specific, socially distinct context, myth.

Thus, within the
Clinton myth, where Shuster thought he was exclusively operating, the
original meaning ('Hillary is selling Chelsea sexually as a pimp does
a prostitute') is emptied out to some extent so that it can function
as a signifier within the level of myth. It must lose its particularity,
at least momentarily. We must forgo the meaning of "pimped out"
to understand the statement as a part of the Clinton mythology ('the Clintons
will do anything to win').

But, as Barthes
noted in "Myth Today," this process of exchanging original meaning
for a new significance is never absolute, never complete. In fact, in
order to function as a signifier within myth, the original meaning must
remain an available substance to the signifier as a ready alternative
to its new role within myth. That is, the original meaning of "pimped
out" must remain available so that the Clinton myth can work as such.
If the "original" meaning had been completely lost, the vernacularism
would cease to function as myth. The undertone of the remark, supposedly
made "innocent" in its new use within myth, is always present
and ready to be recuperated, which is why Shuster is in trouble. Entranced
by the order of meaning within the Clinton mythos, Shuster forgot that
a speaker is always responsible for the first order of signification,
language's original meaning, which can come back to bite you on the ass.

To see how myth
works, just imagine the situation reversed in terms of the two remaining
Democratic candidates. Imagine, that is, that Shuster had instead intoned:
"It seems like Obama is pimping out his daughters in some weird sort
of way." We would see that the original signifier would also function
in a second order signifying system of myth. But now the words invoke
a different myth. The new myth is not the Clinton myth, but rather the
racist myth that black men are pimps and black women are prostitutes-thus,
the implication that Obama, a black man, should not be elected president.
The mobilization in this context would create a major uproar, as well
it should. But neither of these mobilizations within disparate myths would
work unless the original meaning of the word "pimp" was retained
as an available resource for the myth to work from.

I hope that the
Shuster faux pas will serve as a lesson to those who get so caught
up in myths that they think all their remarks are made "innocent"
in the context of those myths. This has been the case
on MSNBC regarding the Clinton myth, so much so that commentators,
especially
Chris Matthews, have used it to smuggle in all sorts of sexist analogies.
Myth does not wash one clean of intent. In fact, it often only serves
as a foil for it. The Clinton myth has been used as a foil for misogyny.
Further, the misogyny has been smuggled in under the cover of refusing
the racist myth. Sexism cannot be justified, not even in the context of
refusing the racial myth.